Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 546

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
Sasikala Pushpa and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.855 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7252 of 2016) With Criminal Appeal No.856 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7287 OF 2016), Criminal Appeal No.857 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8206 OF 2016), Criminal Appeal No.858 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9064 of 2016), Criminal Appeal No. 859 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9065 OF 2016)
Decided On : 07-05-2019

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Nithin Saravanan, Adv. Dr. B. Ramaswamy, Adv. Ms. Arunima Singh, Adv. Ms. Priya Darshini, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Kishore, Adv. Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. S. Parthasarathi, Adv. Mr. S. Raja Rajeshwaran, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
Before registering a complaint the court should record a finding indicating its satisfaction that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge the complaint.
Vakalatnama is only a document authorizing an advocate to appear on behalf of the party. It has no bearing on the merits of the case.
When charge is not made out and there is no possibility of conviction, power under section 482 CrPC should be exercised.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 340 - Complaint by a court - Court should record a finding indicating its satisfaction that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge the complaint - Complaint cannot be lodged on mere allegations or to vindicate personal vendetta. (Para 10)
       (b) High court Rules - Vakalatnama - Only a document authorizing an advocate to appear on behalf of the party - It has no bearing on the merits of the case - Discrepancy in date of execution - Charge of fraud - Discrepancy plausibly explained - Appellants admitting thei signature of Vakalatnama - No reason to furnish a false date and place in Vakalatnama - High Court not recording any reason for rejecting plea of the appellants - Held, case of forgery not made out even if statement in Valakatnama is incorrect. (Para 16, 19, 21)
       (2017) 1 SCC 117; (2018) 6 SCC 15 - Relied upon
       (1998) 2 SCC 493; (2005) 4 SCC 370 - Referred
       (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Anticipatory bail rejected by High Court - Complaint of forgery registered with direction of High court - Charges framed - Case of forgery not having been made out, no possibility of conviction - Power under section 482 ought to be exercised - FIR quashed. (Para 22, 24)
       (2006) 7 SCC 188 - Relied upon
       (1998) 5 SCC 749 - Referred
       Facts of the case:
       The first appellant was the then Member of Rajya Sabha and expelled Member of AIADMK Political Party. The third appellant is the husband of the first appellant. A complaint was filed by one Banumathi who was then working as maid in the house of the appellants in the year 2011 alleging that she was sexually harassed while she was working in the house of the appellants. Based on the said complaint, a criminal case was registered against all the appellants. The first appellant denied all the allegations and claimed that the same was result of political vendetta against her.
       The appellants filed bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. against the said offences before the High Court. The first appellant left for Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016. While filing bail application, the appellants filed vakalatnama wherein it was stated that the said vakalatnama was signed by the appellants before Advocate Mr. Vijaykumar on 17.08.2016 at Madurai. Challenging the maintainability of the bail petition and the vakalatnama, the respondent-State filed preliminary objections and submitted that appellant No.1 had left for Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016 at 23.15 hours. Similarly, appellant No.3 had left for Singapore from Bengaluru on 18.08.2016 at 09.30 AM. It was alleged that the appellants filed anticipatory bail application on 18.08.2016 as if they were present in Madurai on 17.08.2016 and signed the affidavit and vakalatnama in the presence of an advocate at Madurai.
       The High Court held that the explanations given by the appellants are not satisfactory and the same is contradictory to the written version as contained in the vakalatnama. Referring to the affidavit filed by the appellants, the High Court pointed out that appellant No.1 has given explanation that she never came to Madurai for signing the vakalatnama and that she had never signed the vakalatnama in the presence of advocate Mr. Vijaykumar at Madurai. The learned Single Judge therefore held that prima facie, it appears that the document has been forged and the same has been signed and executed outside Madurai and produced before this court as though, it has been signed and executed at Madurai and the same has been utilized and filed before the High Court. On the above findings, the High Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to lodge the complaint against the appellants with the jurisdictional police station. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the Registrar (Judicial) lodged a complaint with K. Pudur Police Station, Madurai on 19.09.2016. Based on the complaint lodged by the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court, FIR in Crime No.1331/2016 was registered with K. Pudur Police Station, Madurai on 19.09.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 466, 468 and 471 IPC.
       Finding of the Court;
       The impugned order of the High Court issuing direction to lodge criminal complaint against the appellants is set aside.
       Result: Appeals disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

R. BANUMATHI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals [SLP(Crl.) Nos.7252, 7287 and 8206 of 2016] arise out of the judgment dated 14.09.2016 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissing anticipatory bail application in Crl. OP(MD) No.15370 of 2016 filed by the appellants. By the same judgment, the learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional police station against the appellants with respect to the alleged forgery committed by them in signing the vakalatnama. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the Registrar (Judicial) lodged a complaint with K. Pudur Police Station, Madurai on 19.09.2016, on the basis of which, FIR in Crime No.1331/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 466, 468 and 471 IPC was registered against the appellants.

3. The first appellant was the then Member of Rajya Sabha and expelled Member of AIADMK Political Party. The third appellant is the husband of the first appellant. A complaint was filed by one Banumathi who was then working as maid in the house of the appellants in the year 2011 alleging that she was sexually harassed while she was working in the house of the appellants. Based on the said complaint, a criminal case was registered against all the appellants in Crime No.5/2016 in All Women’s Police Station under Sections 294(b), 323, 344, 354(A) and 506(i) IPC and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The first appellant denied all the allegations and claimed that the same was result of political vendetta against her.

4. The appellants filed bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Crl.OP(MD) No.15370 of 2016 against the said offences before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court along with vakalatnama bearing the signature of appellants No.1 and 3 dated 18.08.2016. The first appellant left for Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016. While filing bail application in Crl.OP(MD) No.15370 of 2016, the appellants filed vakalatnama wherein it was stated that the said vakalatnama was signed by the appellants before Advocate Mr. Vijaykumar on 17.08.2016 at Madurai. Challenging the maintainability of the bail petition and the vakalatnama, the respondent-State filed preliminary objections and submitted that appellant No.1 had left for Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016 at 23.15 hours. Similarly, appellant No.3 had left for Singapore from Bengaluru on 18.08.2016 at 09.30 AM. It was alleged that the appellants filed anticipatory bail application on 18.08.2016 as if they were present in Madurai on 17.08.2016 and signed the affidavit and vakalatnama in the presence of an advocate at Madurai. The High Court vide order dated 23.08.2016 directed the appellants to appear before the court on 29.08.2016 and to give their explanation with regard to the said preliminary objection. Accordingly, the appellants appeared before the court on the said date and submitted their affidavit before the High Court stating that the date mentioned in the vakalatnama was an inadvertent mistake.

5. In the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the explanations given by the appellants are not satisfactory and the same is contradictory to the written version as contained in the vakalatnama. Referring to the affidavit filed by the appellants, the High Court pointed out that appellant No.1 has given explanation that she never came to Madurai for signing the vakalatnama and that she had never signed the vakalatnama in the presence of advocate Mr. Vijaykumar at Madurai. The learned Single Judge therefore held that prima facie, it appears that the document has been forged and the same has been signed and executed outside Madurai and produced before this court as though, it has been signed and executed at Madurai and the same has been utilized and filed before the High Court. On the above findings, the High Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to lodge the complaint against the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 546

Cases Referred (6)